Abstract

Upto the end of year 2011, there have been 11 meta-analysis (1 on in vitro study, 1 on combination remedy) published in 10 medical journals (7 integrative, 1 homeopathy and 2 CAM journals). Out of 11 meta analysis, 5 are comprehensive/global, 5 on specific medical condition and 1 on super-avogadro dilution effect. Upto the end of year 2010, there have been 8 systematic reviews (1 on combination remedy) including 1 cochrane review (out of approximately 20 systematic reviews published) published in 5 medical journals (1 integrative, 1 homeopathy and 3 CAM journals) in evidence of homeopathy.

Rate this:

URL Links to 19 studies (Journal-wise) including 11 FULL TEXT papers are available as compendium on this webpage. 5 meta analysis and 6 systematic reviews are also available as PDF which can be read at or downloaded from Google Drive.

Bias: Bias is a systematic error i.e. the difference between study findings/outcomes and the truth.

Publication Bias: The tendency for studies with a positive result to be published more readily than those which are negative or inconclusive.

Meta Analysis of RCT: It is a statistical method of combining results from multiple randomised controlled trials for different indications in the form of a weighted average (some studies carries more weight than others) to determine overall trend or significance as an output. It helps in reducing information overload, find publication bias, if any and may explain heterogeneity between the results of individual studies.

The first meta analysis on typhoid inoculation was published in British Medical Journal in 1904. The first meta analysis of a medical treatment was published in 1955. The first meta analysis in evidence of homeopathy was published in 1991.

Systematic Review: It is synthesis of the results of several studies (including conflicting studies) so as to assess the strength of the evidence.A review is termed systematic if it is based on clearly formulated peer-reviewed protocols (in advance) such as research question, clear inclusion/exclusion criterion, explicit search strategy, critical appraisal, etc and employs the same level of scientific rigour as should be used to produce that research evidence in the first place. A systematic review is as good as the quality of studies included in the review. A systematic review can be independently replicated. The first systematic review in evidence of homeopathy was published in 2000.

Systematic reviews often, but not always, use statistical techniques such as meta-analysis to combine results of the eligible studies. The purpose of both meta analysis and systematic review is to obtain a better understanding of how treatment works.

META ANALYSIS

META ANALYSIS (COMPREHENSIVE)

1. British Medical Journal

Clinical Trials of Homeopathy (1991) FULL TEXT // 81 (77%) out of 105 RCT (1943-1990) shows statistically significant result for homeopathy and 15 out of 22 best quality studies are also statistically significant.

Out of 81, 5 out of 5 of the clinical trials for hay fever showed a positive result and 8 out of 10 trials looking at mental or emotional problems showed a beneficial effect, while 6 out of 7 trials for infection showed that homeopathy could effectively relieve the problem.

“Based on this evidence we would be ready to accept that homoeopathy can be efficacious, if only the mechanism of action were more plausible” and “the evidence presented in this review would probably be sufficient for establishing homoeopathy as a regular treatment for certain indications……..a conventional method would have been acknowledged with this amount of evidence”, the results are mostly favourable for homeopathy regarding the quality of trials.”

2. The Lancet

Are clinical effects of homeopathy placebo effects? A meta-analysis of placebo-controlled trialsLinde et.al. (1997) FULL TEXT // AMSTAR score=9/11, 74 out of 89 RCT (1966-1995) showed homeopathy statistically significantly superior [2.45 times more effective and positive at 95% confidence interval (CI)] to placebo. After correction for publication bias, the odds ratio reduces to 1.78, still statistically significant. 26 out of 89 studies were of high quality for which odds ratio reduces further to 1.66, still significant.In 1999, the authors reassessed the studies and found that 10 trials with highest jaded score (Jaded 5) still significant.

The main conclusion was that the results “were not compatible with the hypothesis that the effects of homoeopathy are completely due to placebo.”

Homeopathy forpost-operative ileus: meta analysis (1997) //AMSTAR score=6/11, Barnes, E. Ernst, 6 trials, 776 patients, medicines: Opium, Arnica, Raphanus sativus, China, Pyrogenum, 4 out of 6 trials are of best quality. Two of the four studies that also measured time to first faeces reported a positive effect for homeopathy. A meta-analysis of all six included studies revealed a statistically significant effect in favour of homeopathy for time to first flatus (weighted mean difference (WMD) -7.4; 95% CI -4.0 to -10.8; p<0.05). This effect remained even with the exclusion of the two low quality studies (WMD -6.11; 95% CI -2.31 to -9.91; p<0.005). A significant effect in favour of homeopathy was also found for time to first flatus when a homeopathic remedy of less than 12C potency was used (4 studies; WMD -6.6; 95% CI -2.6 to -10.5; p<0.05). Conclusion: “there is some evidence to support the administration of a homeopathic remedy immediately after surgery to reduce the duration of ileus”

2.Wiener Medizinische Wochenschrift

Homeopathic Galphimia glauca for hay fever(1997) //Galpimia Glauca in 2c, 4c, 4x, 6x, LM4. N=1038, The odds ratios of all of the four individual studies favoured homeopathy, and in two of the four studies the result was statistically significant. After the results were pooled, the odds ratio of 1.87 suggested that Galphimia glauca is significantly more effective than placebo.

Homeopathy for diarrhea: meta-analysis (2003) ) FULL TEXT //n=242, age=6 months to 5 years, t=5 days, p=0.008, A meta-analysis of three studies showing individualized homeopathy reduced the duration of the disease by a quarter. Diarrhoea ceased in those taking homeopathic medicines after 3.3 days and after 4.1 days in those using placebo.

Homeopathic remedies for the treatment of osteoarthritis: a systematic review (2001) (by Long and Ernst) // 4 RCT with n=506,Zeel superior to hyaluronic acid, combination of Rhus Tox, Causticum and Lac Vac superior to paracetamol.AMSTAR score=6/10, homeopathy found to be “at least as effective” as a conventional NSAID gel, “positive trend towards the effectiveness of combination homeopathic preparations”.

The in vitro evidence for an effect of high homeopathic potencies—A systematic review (2007) FULL TEXT // 73% of 67 in-vitro experiments (1/3 of them replicated) published in 75 publications showed specific effects with high dilutions including 68% of high quality experiments (SAPEH score>=6).Nearly 3/4 of them found a high potency effect. Nearly 3/4 of all replications were positive.

Very nice compendium of clinical trials that were published in medical journals. Of course, many thousands more trials were conducted, but not published to add to this database. Your article was unbiased and clear, just posting the reports without commentary, allowing readers to come to their own conclusions. Thank you, Nancy.